Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Archfilm Date: Dec 6, 2012 7:58am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Please remove

http://archive.org/details/BlackFury1935

Unfortunately, this movie has to be taken down; it's still copyrighted.

I have attached a proof of renewal.

Attachment: Black_Fury_renewal.png

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bullie89 Date: Dec 6, 2012 1:22pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I have posted this film to YouTube and nobody claimed anything. Others than myself researched this and did not find a renewal. It was late. The film was made in 1934 but released in 1935. They would have had to renew in 1960, however, they did not renew until 1962. I think the film is in the Public Domain. Being two years late is not an acceptable renewal as I understand it.

Thanks,

Ellen

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Archfilm Date: Dec 7, 2012 1:06am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

"This is governed by statutory section 17 USC 304. Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for a second renewal term of an additional 28 years. If no application was filed for renewal, the work would enter the public domain after the initial 28 year term."

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/duration.html

Since this has a 1934 copyright, the film had to be renewed by 1962, not 1960, which UA did properly.

And Ellen, I have absolutely NO affiliation with any website wanting to take these videos down. I may look shady, but I have no intention to give you hard feelings. I do NOT want the Internet Archive to be banned. And just because I requested this video to be taken down is solely to avoid getting a cease-and-desist letter from Warner Bros., not to bully you. By all means, continue downloading movies on here.

This post was modified by Archfilm on 2012-12-07 09:06:35

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bullie89 Date: Dec 9, 2012 1:44pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I have not gotten a strike for this, apparently WB does not care about this film. It is here and it will stay until the Officers of the Archive decide to take it down.

I don't know you and I have zero knowledge of the allegations against you. You were a bully and that is always uncalled for. I don't bother anybody and I just love Vintage films.

Thanks for your reply, I read 25 years, not 28 years and others were searching to see if the film is in the Public Domain. Using 25 years from 1934 when the film was made, however it was released in 1935. Either way with the 25 year window they were several years late. It was not United Artists, it was a Warner Brothers film capitalizing on Muni's success in Scarface, and 'I was a Prisoner On A Chain Gang. BTW, I have all of his films!

Thanks,

Ellen

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Archfilm Date: Dec 9, 2012 4:53pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I was only concerned, and if my post offended you, I apologize. I'll close this case.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bullie89 Date: Dec 11, 2012 1:01am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Thank you for your kind note. Have a great holiday season and as always, enjoy classic films!

:)

Ellen

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: PDpolice Date: Dec 6, 2012 1:56pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Last year there was a spurned critic who vowed to close the Archive and has worked with other organizations towards that goal using unproven copyright claims and other methods. You seemed to have been attacked recently by someone with the goal of stopping your pleasant film postings. Are you certain this Archfirm account is not the same entity?
It is difficult to determine who are really who and what their agenda is in trying to remove films from here.
As always, if the copyright holder contacts the Archive, they will remove the film. And as always, if you spend time here and read this, send a donation. I’m a cheapskate but I do it!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bullie89 Date: Dec 6, 2012 2:28pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I have no idea who anyone is except for a few who I am friends with off the Archive. I do not understand the utter harassment I get from some of these folks. I am trying to contribute better prints until The Video Cellar gets around to doing their fantastic restorations. The rips turn out to be very nice, but the Video Cellar will do even better.

I will send a donation, it won't be much though. I am currently disabled due to a fractured leg so I am not able to go to work. I will send something that I can rob from something else I have to pay for, such as groceries which now have to be delivered!

That Muni film is definitely PD or WarnerBrothers would have given me a strike, so that is proof for the PD status of the film.

Thanks for it all,

Ellen and my menagerie of Quadrupeds...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: klewsew Date: Dec 6, 2012 4:03pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Normally I would not venture into this area but a simple Google of the renewal #294791, brings forth:

Dated April12, 2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. And
)
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Kathleen Montgomery a/k/a Kathy
)
Montgomery, an individual and d/b/a
)
www.oldtimeentertainment.com; Old
)
Time Entertainment and Does 1-10,
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No. CV10-7160 RSWL
(FMOx)
CONSENT DECREE AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Among the hundreds of films required to be taken down:

Black Fury
R294791
EntertainmentWarner Bros.
EntertainmentInc.
Inc.

I cannot include a clickable link to the court case in this forum.

Game, set, match!

This post was modified by klewsew on 2012-12-07 00:03:48

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: PDpolice Date: Dec 6, 2012 4:20pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Yup,
I thought it was a conspiracy of the noodnix lodge. Next the unmentionable character called xorx2 will show up.
Bullie89, please continue to post when possible and avoid the hurt feeling that group wants to cause. They actually have a name and a web site, but I will not identify it.
They want the Archive to fail due to something that has nothing to do with you. It is not worth your time to even respond or pay attention.
Just remember that most people here appreciate your postings.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bullie89 Date: Dec 6, 2012 6:37pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I am not convinced. The certificate and the original copyright date is visible on the film itself. I will not bother to respond further. They missed the window for renewal and that is that. The Defendant in the alleged case above apparently had hundreds of WB films. WB is not perfect.

Game, set, ass.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Retrodude Date: Dec 6, 2012 7:17pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Since there's been some conversation on this thread, something more serious has been concerning me lately. A couple of chronic posters of recent Hollywood stuff have been flooding the Archive with naughty stuff. I posted about it recently, but I guess it fell through the cracks. 1- http://archive.org/details/ResidentEvilRetribution2012 2- http://archive.org/details/ac28016lam 3- http://archive.org/details/ac99320lam 4- http://archive.org/details/ac62414lam 5- http://archive.org/details/ac68926lam 6- http://archive.org/details/ac70630lam 7- http://archive.org/details/ac84301lam 8- http://archive.org/details/ac08405ram 9- http://archive.org/details/ac64724sh 10-http://archive.org/details/p.i.b 11- http://archive.org/details/ac57216lam 12- http://archive.org/details/ac71111lam 13- http://archive.org/details/T.Exp.2.2012 14- http://archive.org/details/R.e.2.2004.bySpiderman1916 The first link contains Resident Evil Retribution (2012) The second contains 9 1/2 Weeks. The third contains Basic Instinct and Basic Instinct 2. The fourth contains American Pie and Borat. The 5th contains No Country For Old Men and War Of The Worlds. The 6th contains Eat Pray Love. The 7th contains Annie Hall and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. The 8th contains The Hunger Games. The 9th contains Resident Evil 5 (another copy). The 10th contains Puss in Boots. The 11th contains Eyes Wide Shut. The 12 contains Sister Act, The Birds and The French Connection. The 13th contains The Expendables 2. The 14th contains Resident Evil 2. Internet Archive is my favorite website, bar none, and I'm concerned that a few bad apples could ruin it. Forgive me for the long post.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bullie89 Date: Dec 6, 2012 7:38pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Hi Retrodude,

The folks at the Archive can track the IP addresses of these people and make it impossible for them to gain access. Some IP addresses are not static such as wireless connections at places that have hot spots, however, they can still determine the location. The people who want to bring the Archive down (hard to do as there are some serious donors of the various collections) and the people who post these newer films can be sued by the Archive itself for Fraud and a lot of other actions. I have a friend who is a Harvard Law grad and he is rather keen on intellectual property rights and could give me a list of Actions and brief a case in about 5 minutes.

The person who wants to get Black Fury removed does not comprehend that despite the Litigation the film did NOT have its copyright renewed within the time frame allowed by Law at the time. The film was on the list but the film was in the Public Domain at the time of the Litigation. Not even WB can con a group of Appellate Judges to grant them an exception because somebody was sloppy in 1959 or 1960.

This does not bother me and every time I encounter WB for music, they are extremely nasty but they always release their claim. I am always polite and assert the 'Fair Use' clause and tell them I do not monetize the films and I do not allow ads to play. Basically, it is a waste of their time to be bothering with me as I am a miniscule concern to them so why bother?

Those are my thoughts for now, I am sure that the IT folks at the Archive are already mobilizing to block these people at every port of entry. They are far more clever than those whom post crap like 'Eyes Wide Shut'!

Hang in,

Ellen